Card Doctor haters please respond

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's under Edit Options, then Thread Display Options.

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

It's under Edit Options, then Thread Display Options.

Thank you good sir.

[barrysloate]

The reason that restoration on coins and cards is frowned upon is that the value of each is very much dependent on its grade. Compare a vintage baseball card in Good to Very Good condition to the same one in NR MT to MT condition. The difference might be a hundred fold. As such, collectors demand that whatever grade a coin or card receives is the real thing.

That wouldn't apply to a painting. If a restorer touched up a Picasso, I doubt it would affect the price very much. If major work was done, then it probably would have more of an effect. But baseball cards and coins are very condition sensitive.

[ksabet]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The reason that restoration on coins and cards is frowned upon is that the value of each is very much dependent on its grade. Compare a vintage baseball card in Good to Very Good condition to the same one in NR MT to MT condition. The difference might be a hundred fold. As such, collectors demand that whatever grade a coin or card receives is the real thing.

That wouldn't apply to a painting. If a restorer touched up a Picasso, I doubt it would affect the price very much. If major work was done, then it probably would have more of an effect. But baseball cards and coins are very condition sensitive.

I agree with this but the part where I am confused is why?

If you have two identical cards and both are slabbed PSA 8 why would it matter if one was "touched up" and the other one wasnt?

We love "eye appeal" but then if someone removes a gum stain from 1963 Topps Berra "eye appeal" is thrown out the window and the card is demonized.


If TPGs are defining our love or hate for cards that are doctored then should we flip our stance to buy the holder not the card?

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by ksabet

I agree with this but the part where I am confused is why?

If you have two identical cards and both are slabbed PSA 8 why would it matter if one was "touched up" and the other one wasnt?

We love "eye appeal" but then if someone removes a gum stain from 1963 Topps Berra "eye appeal" is thrown out the window and the card is demonized.


If TPGs are defining our love or hate for cards that are doctored then should we flip our stance to buy the holder not the card?

Different collectors will have different opinions about this. I think most would want an original card rather than a touched up one, but collecting is subjective. Maybe it's time to take a poll.

[Enfuego]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

Different collectors will have different opinions about this. I think most would want an original card rather than a touched up one, but collecting is subjective. Maybe it's time to take a poll.

Agreed!

[chipperhank44]

Originally Posted by ksabet

I agree with this but the part where I am confused is why?

If you have two identical cards and both are slabbed PSA 8 why would it matter if one was "touched up" and the other one wasnt?

We love "eye appeal" but then if someone removes a gum stain from 1963 Topps Berra "eye appeal" is thrown out the window and the card is demonized.


If TPGs are defining our love or hate for cards that are doctored then should we flip our stance to buy the holder not the card?

Regarding high grade vintage cards, the "why" is simple economics: Supply affects the market.

If I have a PSA 8 card that is unaltered and top pop, then a guy trim and bleaches a card that gets a PSA 9, the restoration directly affected my resale value. Owners of high grade vintage cards have a vested interest in preventing artificially enhanced cards from equaling or eclipsing unrestored examples.

[steve B]

Restoration is frowned on for stamps too. It happens on occasion if something is rare enough and in truly horrible condition. But the certs take a while to get, and they nearly always catch and mention repairs. One of the companies had a display at the 2006 international show in DC that was entirely repaired and faked items. I couldn't spot the work done on probably 85% of the stuff shown.

I think that fields where restoration is allowed it has a lot to do with preservation and display. I have some old newspapers that are pretty much disintegrating. If they had any real value either historically or as displays I'd have them deacidified and stabilized. If that work is done right it helps the item survive and is reversible.

Art, cars, furniture, movie posters, all have a good deal of practical/display value. And restoration makes them useful for that for a good long time.

Cards as much as we display them aren't usually in the same sort of category as larger art. So the focus is on originality.

[drcy]

Sentiments are sentiments.

But with a painting there is only one in existence and by design it's meant for display on the wall. A movie poster may not be unique, but it is also intended for display. I think display value is the number one reason whey it's more accepted.

Also, a painting is made up of a lot of materials that may deteriorate or change color with time. The varnish on old oil paintings turns brown and restoration often involves removing the brown varnish to reveal the original colors.

Also, irrelevant to desirability or acceptability, in all areas you have to disclose at sale when an item has been restored. My brother in law collected movie posters and, while he saw nothing unethical about restoration, he did say it effected value and you had to disclose any restoration. He said a Vg poster restored to Mint was worth more than a Vg poster, but worth less than a naturally Mint poster-- so you would get in trouble in the hobby if you didn't disclose restoration.

There's nothing illegal about trimming or recoloring a baseball card. It's knowingly not disclosing what was done at sale that is illegal. And, similar to movie posters, many altered baseball cards do have value.

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by drcy

Sentiments are sentiments.

But with a painting there is only one in existence and by design it's meant for display on the wall. A movie poster may not be unique, but it is also intended for display. I think display value is the number one reason whey it's more accepted.

Also, a painting is made up of a lot of materials that may deteriorate or change color with time. The varnish on old oil paintings turns brown and restoration often involves removing the brown varnish to reveal the original colors.

Also, irrelevant to desirability or acceptability, in all areas you have to disclose at sale when an item has been restored. My brother in law collected movie posters and, while he saw nothing unethical about restoration, he did say it effected value and you had to disclose any restoration. He said a Vg poster restored to Mint was worth more than a Vg poster, but worth less than a naturally Mint poster-- so you would get in trouble in the hobby if you didn't disclose restoration.

There's nothing illegal about trimming or recoloring a baseball card. It's knowingly not disclosing what was done at sale that is illegal. And, similar to movie posters, many altered baseball cards do have value.

Understood. I was more responding to Barry regarding his statement that cards and coins value is based on condition, therefore restoration is frowned upon. That is not the case with movie posters.

You are correct that posters have display value, and thus the value of a restored poster would go up because it is more aesthetically pleasing. And your brother in law is absolutely correct regarding value and auction houses disclosing not just that a piece has been restored, but what restoration was done and what the condition of the piece was originally before restoration.

I guess I am a bit conflicted on the topic. On one hand, I get restoration means that a piece has been altered, but having collected movie paper for as long as I have, it doesn't bother me that much. And I only display a very small fraction of my collection of posters.

Tom C

[frankbmd]

Breaking News

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The reason that restoration on coins and cards is frowned upon is that the value of each is very much dependent on its grade. Compare a vintage baseball card in Good to Very Good condition to the same one in NR MT to MT condition. The difference might be a hundred fold. As such, collectors demand that whatever grade a coin or card receives is the real thing.

That wouldn't apply to a painting. If a restorer touched up a Picasso, I doubt it would affect the price very much. If major work was done, then it probably would have more of an effect. But baseball cards and coins are very condition sensitive.

Barry,

First thought,

I wouldn't mind being restored, regardless of the impact on my value.

Second thought,

Is a card doctor synonymous with a humorous physician?

Third thought,

before Peter gets snarky, why would I even post this?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Restoration requires that a good portion of the original be intact. Sorry Mr. MD.

[T20Brew]

This is an interesting conversation every time it's brought up. The opinions on what is ok and what is over the line are all over the place. There are a lot of variables even with my own preferences.
I'm ok if something is removed from the card like wax, dirt, glue, tape residue by means that don't damage the card. my big concern is usually the long term condition of the card. If the solvent won't corrode the card now or over time I'm generally ok with that.
At the same time I don't care for a card that adds something like recoloring, building back corners, trimming, filling in a pinhole, etc. I guess those are the things I'd more consider altering/restoring/being deceptive. Same thing with removing a crease.
Also if someone alters it and it's going to stay in their collection that's ok too. The tough part is we don't get to take it with us when we meet our maker so then it wouldn't likely be disclosed to the next buyer and then that would be a problem.
I guess it's a good thing for me that with what I collect I have to worry less about that. I actually like the tobacco stains on my T card backs. Adds character. 😀

[btcarfagno]

Originally Posted by barrysloate

The reason that restoration on coins and cards is frowned upon is that the value of each is very much dependent on its grade. Compare a vintage baseball card in Good to Very Good condition to the same one in NR MT to MT condition. The difference might be a hundred fold. As such, collectors demand that whatever grade a coin or card receives is the real thing.

That wouldn't apply to a painting. If a restorer touched up a Picasso, I doubt it would affect the price very much. If major work was done, then it probably would have more of an effect. But baseball cards and coins are very condition sensitive.

How about movie posters?

Top condition items that have not been restored command quite a premium over lesser condition items. Yet restoration happens all the time and can actually enhance the value of a poor condition item.

Tom C

[barrysloate]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

How about movie posters?

Top condition items that have not been restored command quite a premium over lesser condition items. Yet restoration happens all the time and can actually enhance the value of a poor condition item.

Tom C

Each hobby treats restoration differently.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by btcarfagno

How about movie posters?

Top condition items that have not been restored command quite a premium over lesser condition items. Yet restoration happens all the time and can actually enhance the value of a poor condition item.

Tom C

Comic books restored increase there value. Vintage autos have to be cleaned up and restored all the time.

Joe